Hyperglobalisation – unfettered capitalism – causes multiple, interlinked economic, social, environmental, climate and gendered inequities, harming norms of social justice, at times outright ignoring human rights and agreed labour standards.
Business activities can have harmful effects – the Rana Plaza factory collapse and Brumadinho dam breach are two well-known examples. TNCs argue that these were accidents, while I argue they are systemic in a world of almost unfettered capitalism, stemming from the logic of a profit-driven system, and shaped by economic and political power hirarchies.
One of many avenues to help redress such destructive outcomes could come from a multilateral treaty on business and human rights. Such treaty can be understood as a due diligence law for global value chains, in addition including provisions for access to remedy in the case of rights abuse or violations. If a binding treaty materialised, it could support a move towards socially and economically just, environmentally sound, gender-equitable societies across the globe – negotiated via a new eco-social contract.
At the Paris panel, I want to discuss hyperglobalisation and the evolution of TNCs and global value chains (GVCs), and the unequal hierarchy of power between large TNCs and major home countries vis-à-vis small or informal sector suppliers and low-income host countries. I will present selected examples of major “accidents” and harmful outcomes in the textiles, electronics, and minerals sectors. I will then review the history of efforts to address and regulate the socioeconomic impacts of TNCs and GVCs.
At the UN, discussions and negotiations ping-ponged between the UN Secretariat in New York, and UNCTAD, and the Human Rights Council in Geneva, with a parallel process at the tripartite ILO. Arguably, the issue has had attention since the (aborted) efforts to create an International Trade Organisation in 1947, with its mandate to ensure fair labour standards.
After a flaming speech by the then President of Chile in 1972, a UN Centre on TNCs worked on a (binding) code of conduct from 1975 to 1992 – again aborted. This was replaced by a set of voluntary guidelines formulated by the UN and the ILO during the early 2000s. In 2014, Ecuador, South Africa and other countries in the “global South” created an intergovernmental working group to elaborate a binding agreement which could regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. My paper traces the positions of governments, TNCs, and civil society in these negotiations.
The main issue for our panel discussion is to explore conceivable constellations regarding a possible binding agreement, given the conflicting interests and hierarchy of power among different players. My question is: (how) can multilateral negotiations contribute to redressing systemic inequities?
Redressing hyper-globalisation and the inequities systemically generated in GVCs: Multilateral efforts at the UN
Hyperglobalisation – unfettered capitalism – causes multiple, interlinked economic, social, environmental, climate and gendered inequities, harming norms of social justice, at times outright ignoring human rights and agreed labour standards.
Business activities can have harmful effects – the Rana Plaza factory collapse and Brumadinho dam breach are two well-known examples. TNCs argue that these were accidents, while I argue they are systemic in a world of almost unfettered capitalism, stemming from the logic of a profit-driven system, and shaped by economic and political power hirarchies.
One of many avenues to help redress such destructive outcomes could come from a multilateral treaty on business and human rights. Such treaty can be understood as a due diligence law for global value chains, in addition including provisions for access to remedy in the case of rights abuse or violations. If a binding treaty materialised, it could support a move towards socially and economically just, environmentally sound, gender-equitable societies across the globe – negotiated via a new eco-social contract.
At the Paris panel, I want to discuss hyperglobalisation and the evolution of TNCs and global value chains (GVCs), and the unequal hierarchy of power between large TNCs and major home countries vis-à-vis small or informal sector suppliers and low-income host countries. I will present selected examples of major “accidents” and harmful outcomes in the textiles, electronics, and minerals sectors. I will then review the history of efforts to address and regulate the socioeconomic impacts of TNCs and GVCs.
At the UN, discussions and negotiations ping-ponged between the UN Secretariat in New York, and UNCTAD, and the Human Rights Council in Geneva, with a parallel process at the tripartite ILO. Arguably, the issue has had attention since the (aborted) efforts to create an International Trade Organisation in 1947, with its mandate to ensure fair labour standards.
After a flaming speech by the then President of Chile in 1972, a UN Centre on TNCs worked on a (binding) code of conduct from 1975 to 1992 – again aborted. This was replaced by a set of voluntary guidelines formulated by the UN and the ILO during the early 2000s. In 2014, Ecuador, South Africa and other countries in the “global South” created an intergovernmental working group to elaborate a binding agreement which could regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. My paper traces the positions of governments, TNCs, and civil society in these negotiations.
The main issue for our panel discussion is to explore conceivable constellations regarding a possible binding agreement, given the conflicting interests and hierarchy of power among different players. My question is: (how) can multilateral negotiations contribute to redressing systemic inequities?
The full paper is here.
I invite your comments.
Share this: